PAlexander

This is basically right (I said as much regarding the "structurally balanced budget" over at the Mayor John Cranley thread), but I do think a real corner has been turned, now that the Streetcar is being built. The big way Mallory & Qualls failed was not by failing to recognize the hostility of the opposition (although Mallory certainly didn't see Cranley's latent hostility for some reason; not sure how you can't figure that out after working with the guy nearly every day for four years), but by failing to engage the population at large. The single biggest danger to the Streetcar project wasn't CO@ST's direct actions but how long the project seemed to take. Phase 1a should have started as soon as possible as Phase 1, leaving Phase 1b to be Phase 2. People needed to see it in action to really get behind it, and once they had the money to do the first loop they should have done it because it complemented all the other projects that were going on and it would have made the big picture a lot clearer to everyone. That was the big mistake that Mallory & Qualls made. What's telling is how people perceive the potential success of the Streetcar is the status of the surrounding neighborhood; now that the development in OTR is so noticeable, people have more of a sense of how the Streetcar will be successful. That's why Pete Witte and these Price Hill activists are now on board. They are in OTR, seeing right before their eyes that if you firebomb an area with redevelopment money, it'll get fixed up. That's why they want transit access across the Western Hills Viaduct, because they want the institutional redevelopment money to head west, rather than toward Walnut Hills. They know that if they don't get their neighborhood aligned with the new trends in redevelopment, they're at much greater risk to becoming the South Side of Chicago. They're previous attitude was one of bluster, that the City needed them more than they needed the City. They've finally gotten smart and realized that although they might have strong personal and kinship ties to Delhi and Green Township, land is immobile.

Those are some good points, though I think we need to keep in mind how big UC's actual campus is and how, once you have to walk through it, walking two extra blocks isn't that big of a deal. Like I said before, lots of students are walking there from east of Vine right now, and the University is obviously going to axe student parking before faculty or admin parking. If you're going to "connect" UC to the Streetcar line, the best way is through the campus via University or Lincoln and thence north on Brookline through Burnet Woods to Ludlow where the new Clifton Public Library will be (Boss Cox Mansion), as suggested ages ago by jmecklenborg on this thread. The difference between walking from Jefferson through campus or from Vine through campus is meager compared the the distance between walking from the Michael Graves Engineering building through campus, given that the Engineering building is nearly in the middle of UC's campus.

Yeah, I saw that. I just don't think it's worth splitting between streets at that point, particularly given the extreme difference in grade between McMillan & Taft/Calhoun that occurs around Vine Street. Certainly, but there's traffic going on to the interstate at McMillan, so it's a wash unless you have a reason to prefer one to the other. The reason I'd say Taft is preferable is because of the public institutions & major employers that are closer to Taft than to McMillan: UC / Cincinnati School Board Building / that park / Vernon Manor campus / Children's Oak Street campus / Walnut Hills Public Library / Alms Hotel / Blue Cross & Blue Shield versus Christ Hospital / Hamilton County Building that's near Highland / Union Institute / St. Ursula School. That's my count, anyway. Obviously we want the travel times to be as fast as possible, but I see, and I believe reasonably, that the Streetcar, being a circulator (even if it isn't circulating in this specific situation) is designed to increase density and support a auto-free lifestyle. Nobody who can afford it who is concerned about getting from downtown to Clifton as fast as possible is going to choose the Streetcar over a car, but there will be plenty of people who will take going a little slower on that route so that they don't have to own a car. Even if I accept your premise that the Jefferson route is quicker than one through University Plaza & Short Vine (which I don't except for the purpose of this argument) I doubt whatever resulting decrease in speed will cause the person who will ditch their car once the Streetcar is in place will go back to the car because of that.

Cranley isn't that smart. The difference is that the "structurally balanced" line has always been something that the so-called conservative members of Council used to hit the supposedly liberal members with. Now that the so-called conservative members are running it, they just say that it is "structurally balanced" and the other side, which never particularly cared whether the budget was "structurally" balanced so much as that it was balanced are going to make a couple comments but they simply aren't going to get fired up about this. Anyone who actually cared about this issue as policy, rather than as a political talking point (likely 0 people fall into that category) would never have been convinced that John Cranley would "structurally balance" the budget when he, as finance chair, was the guy who started the trend of submitting structurally unbalanced budgets to council in the first place.

Personally it seems to me that Taft/Calhoun is a better route for the Streetcar going both ways, primarily because Taft hits Reading at grade whereas McMillan is on a bridge high above it. Also, at that same Taft & Reading intersection you have tennis courts and that awesome but severely underutilized park, and you're a block away from the old Vernon Manor hotel, as well as walking distance to Children's Oak Street campus. McMillan is far more cut off from all those things at that area. Finally, if you're concerned about "covering" UC as you say below, the fact that Taft/Calhoun is immediately adjacent to the campus, whereas McMillan isn't, should be something of a factor. Here I have to say that Short Vine is a far superior choice to Jefferson. The one block difference doesn't really seem to effect most UC students presently. Also, Jefferson is already built like a mini-highway, and a bunch of cars are still going to be moving through the area, so it strikes me as being potentially more effective to give them that road that has been rebuilt seven times over expressly in their image. Finally, the Short Vine route reconnects the original main artery of the City, and the route could actually be extended off Vine north of MLK by routing it on those useless frontage along the School of Nursing and VA Hospital. While I fully support your indignation, the most egregious thing to me is that Council, if it actually cared about having the operating costs paid as much as they say, could have the Streetcar "pay for itself" tomorrow. There are any number of ways that have been suggested by plenty of folks that would tie the directly effected properties to paying for the operating costs of the route. Paying for the costs through property taxes is the most efficient, equitable and most encouraging means toward increasing density. The fact that these clowns keep acting as if this is some problem on the level of complexity of splitting the atom is really the most insulting thing about it.

While Queensgate could eventually be redeveloped into something great, it would likely require the repositioning of far too much highway to work, at least for now. The only sensible West Side streetcar route is across the Western Hills Viaduct, because it could then take you up McMillan to Clifton or down McMillan to OTR/Downtown. But that's okay! Having that connection is more psychological than anything else. The real change would be what the Streetcar would do in neighborhoods like Price Hill or Fairmount. You get enough density for foot traffic to have sustainable walkable neighborhood business districts, but most people will still live in single family detached houses with cars and garages. Now if you combined that with a light rail loop that took you from the western side of the Mill Creek to Downtown, out the Oasis line past Lunken, through Highland/Ridge to Bond Hill at Seymour, through Carthage past P&G's Center Hill campus & Ivorydale, through Northside back down to the West Side, you'd connect it to some newly developable empolyment zones, plus a couple (like Center Hill and the Paddock interchange) which are mid-major employment zones (Downtown & Clifton/Pill Hill being the big leagues). While the renderings are lovely, let's not forget the discrepancy between the renderings of the original Banks plan and the absolutely insipid apartments on top of parking garages which are on top of underground parking garages that we actually got. I wouldn't trust for a second that that's how the final product will look. Also, let's think hard about this: Do we have an example where removing a streetscape and replacing it with parkland causes development, or at least the dense urban development we need? I'm not talking about replacing industrial warehouse and train track filled bottom land with a park like on the river (and all those Captain's Watches and Currents are hardly the type of development we want, nor did they spring up on their own volition), nor am I talking about replacing a massive urban highway with a park such as in Seoul. I'm talking about replacing a legit, if worn down, neighborhood with an open sewer that the powers that be will call a park. I seriously doubt that is going to spark much of anything. The lesson from 3CDC in OTR is that if you spend enough money, you can make something nice. Everybody already knew about location, location, location. Since Fairmount won't be gaining location with a park, I doubt ripping out the heart and soul of the place and replacing it with empty space between two major roads is going to help the neighborhood.

The best thing about that proposed bikeshare map, is how it completely concedes the entire premise behind the Streetcar project. It's even divided into two phases, the first focusing on downtown/OTR, and the second on the Clifton/Corryville area.

There's certainly an argument to be made against the Port, and the type of development it represents. It's the same argument against the Banks, and you can agree with or not, but there it is. My favorite thing is how this proposed budget is being reported as "the first structurally balanced budget since 2001." And who became chairman of the Finance Committee after a riot started in a meeting of the Law Committee that he chaired? One John Cranley. How those comments pass without context in a news article is beyond me.

Those eminent domain cases are kind of funny, in that it's for some reason a big deal now what was commonplace 50 years ago. Basically you can do the same thing you could always do, but for economic development eminent domain (at least in Ohio now) you can only take if the area is "blighted" which basically means you can only take from the least politically powerful property owners. There was an old U.S. Supreme Court case from the 50's where one of the the taken properties argued that their property wasn't blighted even if the rest of the neighborhood was, and the Court basically said, "Suck it". But at least that was a slightly more equitable standard than what the Ohio Supreme Court decided in the Norwood case. The funny thing about the eminent domain cases is that I don't think they would arouse so much opposition if these mega-block developments didn't suck so bad. People would like them more if they were actually nice and not some Sartrian parking lot nightmare.

If you want to see some big houses that are still on large lots and are in the middle of the City, take Vista Avenue off Madison Road and then take your first left onto Garden Place. Keep going until you run into people's driveways. It's the most hidden richest spot in the City. Larger estates will be on Grandin Road where it deadends where Edwards starts. Less obscure. All these places are private drives, but if you put on some headphones and ride your bike you can pretend like you can't hear les grandes dames when they start hassling you.

Interesting article. Unfortunately the premise that a fact will influence the debate doesn't seem to relevant to our situation when the process gets hijacked by a politician whose sole concern is presenting himself as the most reasonable guy out there because he "balances" both sides. I'm speaking of David Mann of course.

^I think it is being built mid block where the cars park, on the far west side of the block between Walnut and Main. These substations seem like a good project for DAAP students to come up with attractive and inexpensive coverings.

He's pretty clearly got a chip on his shoulder for some reason and just wants to try and undo as much of what was done during the previous 4 years when he wasn't on Council. It's really weird, because he and Mallory were always on the same side of every budget dispute between 2005-2009.

^While it would be nice to have a reversion clause (and demonstrate actual foresight), it's not that big a deal. Property can always be taken for a public use through eminent domain. In addition, as jmecklenborg has stated, for light rail to be effective along the Wasson route, a tunnel is likely needed from near Marburg through Rookwood Commons. Also, there's the issue of how far the Wasson route would go- would it extend all the way through Ault Park, which is sort of pointless, or take that hard left at Erie Avenue and move along Murray Avenue, a much more useful route but one with far more political difficulties. At least the route is still planned to stay intact as a continuous right-of-way.

^I don't disagree with your assessment, but let's be clear about who is causing this problem: David Mann. He has unilaterally decided that the process that occurred was not up to snuff (despite the fact that it is the same process used for every project like this); that a 9-0 decision was made too hastily; and that anyone who disagree with his 11th hour change is the one who isn't compromising. Cranley is a known quantity, it is David Mann's bizarre self-regard is causing him to campaign against the streetcar for several months and declare the administration untrustworthy, then decide after a week of actually paying attention to the issue that it is in fact a great idea; that the private funding which was so necessary for the streetcar, which was only to benefit a certain number of people and businesses, is completely unnecessary for the MLK interchange; and that the "job-creators" (real estate developers and small business owners) in Over-The-Rhine, where new businesses and residences are being created every day, and where property values are sky-rocketing, are selfishly focused on their own interests; but this lone small business owner who's business happens to be in property development wants City money to fix something that is only of value to him. Oh, and the whole time David Mann is costing the City more and more money to do stuff it has already planned on doing, he's insisting that he's just trying to make the City a better place for his children and grandchildren, so screw you, if you disagree with him than I guess you hate kids. Let's all remember this when these clowns try and change the Charter to have a strong mayor. Remember which councilmembers are advocating it and remember how they act.

It's not clear to me why this is the case. While I believer the Wasson bike route is pretty stupid on its face (there is plenty of room, and plenty of bikers, who use Erie Avenue), why wouldn't the City be able to take the route through eminent domain? Passenger inner-city rail is a clear and obviouse public use.

I completely agree. I am curious about the townhomes along the Schmidlapp Event Lawn though. I would really love to see those filled in with unique designs for each townhome. I know that's highly unlikely, but if the big-money buyers are out there...they might be wooed by a little freedom in their design. I agree completely. Would be nice to see custom homes in various styles, especially something with some energy and some color. I don't know who decided that The Banks should look like a docker's pants rack. I find it helpful to view all this new construction as transitional. This is how the re-population of certain urban areas gets started. Soon (I hope) these developments will become so typical that developers will eventually have to start distinguishing themselves on design. This kind of happened in some of the 3CDC developments, which oftentimes had very bland, cookie-cutter interiors, but which the Mottonai developers really did a good job of distinguishing their building.

Sweet Fancy Moses, that design is insipid. Slightly prefer that it not be built.

If you look at the CAGIS property map it looks like there used to be a street or alleyway that paralleled Vine on that exact route.

The real question then is whether the southwesternmost block is the giant block as labeled in bottom picture of jwulsin's post of 12:59, or the much smaller block in the top picture of the same post.

^I find this article confusing, mostly because of my presumptions. I thought the Bengals only had some sort of right regarding the Elm street blocks of the Banks, the ones immediately adjacent to the stadium. The article seems to indicate that the Bengals have their veto rights over the entire Banks Phase II development, which I always took to refer to every block west of the Freedom Center. Does anyone know what the real situation is?

That's all about turnout.

"Convinced" is a strong word, unless you mean it as, "gave political cover to kill". Of course, this whole letting politicians tinker with the policy was why they created the City Manager system in the 20's to begin with. The funny thing is how, before Charter reform, there were 26 wards (and council member for each) and they reduced the number to resemble a corporate board. Now these strong-mayor types want to go back to tinkering with policy but not add more representation. Something to think about.

But how many accidents have occurred there? The stretch of Wasson from Paxton to Edwards is definitely unique, but my long experience with that road is that the actual traffic problems stem from Paxton & Edwards, Paxton because of the number of cars trying to get in and out of the Kroger parking lot, and Edwards because of the traffic from the Rookwood development. Now that they've cut off all the connections from Edwards into Oakley the section from Madison to Markbreit is going to turn into an absurdly high speed area. I suspect that, so long as people can adequately see what's coming from the right or the left at an intersection, you put up a stop sign or maybe a blinking red and you've basically solved the problem in the optimal way. My experience driving through Mt. Lookout, Hyde Park and Oakley Squares after spring storms have knocked out the power and defaulted all the traffic lights to blinking reds is that traffic moves both smoother and slower because people aren't racing to get through the 30 second green light window some algorithm has for several of those green lights. The blinking reds tap into some innate human sense of fairness that calms everything down, in my opinion. Anyway, the side streets on Wasson are probably less of a problem than you might think, and are definitely less of a problem presently than the Kroger parking lot.

Gold Star delicious or Skyline delicious?